Reading mode: Light Dark

Good fast telephoto option for Nikon F?

Go to last post
sorelrjphoto

sorelrjphoto

Member
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
Location
OR, US
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
 
Don't know what you shoot or how (subjects, tripod, etc.), but they're all good lenses in this class. My prefered is the VRII, as I'm a nature shooter and it's fantastic with all three tc's. The AF is fast, consistent, and dependable. VR is very good. If I was shooting other subjects I might have another perspective. I'd have no reservations going with Tamron or Sigma's current offerings. If you don't have the budget, the older lenses from Nikon are still very good, and the older Tamron without VC is great optically...just not very fast AF.

These lenses all have their own strengths and weaknesses, so when you narrow it down...do some model-specific research.
 
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I would say that Sigma's 100.400 C is surprisingly good considering its price.

It is surprisingly sharp at 400mm and takes TC with ease, not least the Sigma TC-1401. The dock can be helpful if you want to eke out the best sharpness, at various focusing distances, and focus speed!

It is not dust-proof, which for some can be an issue, and its autofocusing is a wee bit slow, but enough for most types of targets. I came via a long crooked road tho this lens, which is about as heavy as the 70-200/4G, which I also own. So in bad weather, I bring that excellent lens along, but most of the time the Sigma is my companion.

Both are excellent, considering their cost (the Nikon costs quite a bit more).

The tiny AF-P 70-300 FX is quite nice, with faster focusing. Doesn't work with every FX camera, but the D850 should work. Very plastic, even the mount. I have the VR DX version (the FX always comes with VR), which is really nice, but needs a Kenko 1.4X TC to work well on a FX body.
 
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Been using 70-200 vr2 on d800 since got d800 in 2012. Love it! Used one can be had on ebay for $600-$1000
 
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
You can consider the G2 version of the Tamron 70-200mm, or Nikon's very own 70-200mm f4G. Pretty good value for money.

I recently got for myself a VR2 version of 70-200mm f2.8G, got some great shots so far.
 
fft81 said:
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Been using 70-200 vr2 on d800 since got d800 in 2012. Love it! Used one can be had on ebay for $600-$1000
Click to expand...
I've had no reason to upgrade my VR2 since 2012 -- I love it for action, portraits, landscape details -- pretty much everything.

Yes, it's heavy and sometimes intimidating, but works just as well with Z cameras (and FTZ) -- something to consider for the future.

I paid close to $2000 CAD ten years ago, and used prices here in Canada haven't fallen much. That's a good thing, as even if you're paying $1000 US for a used one, you can pretty much use it all you want and resell it without losing any money -- if any.

The only caution I have is that you check out the lens thoroughly -- many of the cheaper ones have seen heavy use by professionals, and they will be expensive to repair -- which will happen sooner or later. (The same goes for any of this type of lens). That said, mine has probably taken 200,000 shots and is still working perfectly.

Disclosure: The AF did sound funny for awhile after I fell from a bridge five years ago, but that problem corrected itself quickly and I've never had to send it in. That just goes to prove how well this lens is made, and why it was so expensive in the first place. (I took the brunt of the fall, which luckily only cracked a rib and the lens hood.)
 
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I've been using a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II for about a decade now. While it's a fine lens, the newer 2.8E is better in every respect except for compatibility with older cameras and power consumption. The main beef people have with it is "focal length breathing." At minimum focus distance, the maximum focal length "shrinks" to around 135mm. It's never been an issue for me, but my use pattern may differ from yours, and some people feel they are being cheated even if they don't have a use case in mind.

Oddly, the VR-II was not discontinued when Nikon introduced the E in 2016, so parts and factory repair should remain available for at least 8 more years. So I can recommend a VR-II with reservations. If you don't have an immediate need, "buy once, cry once" is worth thinking about.

Because the F-mount is entering its emeritus years, I don't recommend any older 3rd party 70-200mm f/2.8 due to compatibility concerns. The latest Sigma and Tamron offerings allow firmware upgrades though their dock/console, so those are much less of a risk.
 
Well, the E version is clearly the best, and it even holds up when compared to the Z-mount version. But since you can't afford it, there are several other choices which will be fine, if slightly different at certain focal lengths.

The 70-200 F2.8 vr II - excellent lens, surpassed mostly around 135mm by the E version, but no slouch. I'd go for this one.

The Tamron 70-200 F2.8 has an excellent reputation.

Older 80-200 F2.8's might be viable. The price will certainly be far less than the newer variants, but AF part supplies and servicing are suspect. The 80-200 F2.8 AF-S might work for you. My experience with the older F-mount lenses (designed for film) is that they are clearly softer wide open, but sharpen up nicely by F3.5.
 
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming.
Click to expand...
If we're excluding the 80-200's, then Nikon has only made three (f mount) 70-200 2.8's. I would only consider the last two. You've already stated that you can't afford the E FL so that only leaves us with one option from Nikon, the VRII. Tamron and Sigma each only have one worth considering, the newest version from either brand. So that basically leaves you with 3 options.

1. Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII

2. Sigma Sport 70-200 2.8

3. Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2

They're all good. Just pick one.

*EDIT* I almost feel guilty not adding the AF-S 80-200 to the list so I'll throw that in as an option. This lens was ahead of it's time and can be found dirt cheap. If it doesn't squeak, you've got a winner.

--
If you're experimenting with new camera bodies but you've never experimented with light, you're definitely getting bad advice.
 
Last edited:
Tord S Eriksson said:
The tiny AF-P 70-300 FX is quite nice, with faster focusing. Doesn't work with every FX camera, but the D850 should work. Very plastic, even the mount.
Click to expand...
The AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E does NOT have a plastic mount. It is an excellent lens if you don't absolutely need F/2.8.
 
The Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-s is extremely sharp with little or no CA. AF is very fast. Said to be superior to the original VR, hence the release of the VR II.

I only sold mine because of the weight, and went to an f4. Never looked back.

Mine did not squeak. My understanding is that the AF-s squeak is more of an annoyance than a problem.

There are 4 or 5 Nikon 80-200/2.8 lenses. The AF-s two touch is the best. I also had the AF D one touch for a short time and IQ was on par. AF-s would be a better AF system.
 
Upritbass said:
Tord S Eriksson said:
The tiny AF-P 70-300 FX is quite nice, with faster focusing. Doesn't work with every FX camera, but the D850 should work. Very plastic, even the mount.
Click to expand...
The AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E does NOT have a plastic mount. It is an excellent lens if you don't absolutely need F/2.8.
Click to expand...
My mistake! The AF-P 70-300 DX variants do have a plastic mount, I missed the fact that the FX does not. Sorry!
 
Parry Johnson said:
fft81 said:
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Been using 70-200 vr2 on d800 since got d800 in 2012. Love it! Used one can be had on ebay for $600-$1000
Click to expand...
I've had no reason to upgrade my VR2 since 2012 -- I love it for action, portraits, landscape details -- pretty much everything.

Yes, it's heavy and sometimes intimidating, but works just as well with Z cameras (and FTZ) -- something to consider for the future.

I paid close to $2000 CAD ten years ago, and used prices here in Canada haven't fallen much. That's a good thing, as even if you're paying $1000 US for a used one, you can pretty much use it all you want and resell it without losing any money -- if any.

The only caution I have is that you check out the lens thoroughly -- many of the cheaper ones have seen heavy use by professionals, and they will be expensive to repair -- which will happen sooner or later. (The same goes for any of this type of lens). That said, mine has probably taken 200,000 shots and is still working perfectly.

Disclosure: The AF did sound funny for awhile after I fell from a bridge five years ago, but that problem corrected itself quickly and I've never had to send it in. That just goes to prove how well this lens is made, and why it was so expensive in the first place. (I took the brunt of the fall, which luckily only cracked a rib and the lens hood.)
Click to expand...
That VR II is a really nice lens if almost twice as heavy as the 4G!

The AF-S 70-200/4.0G is also very good, and as durable! If Imaging Resouce's tests are anything to go by the VR II and the 4G are about as sharp (the VR II slightly ahead), but the 4G is far better when used on DX bodies, which the VR II isn't!

Optical Limits grades the 4G slightly softer, but with a great Bokeh when it comes to subjects behind focus.
 
Hi,

...you were looking for something with rabbit ears. Or, could add rabbit ears to.

You know, for the Photomic finder. Found on a Nikon F.

Stan

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did! :)
 
Last edited:
Tord S Eriksson said:
That VR II is a really nice lens if almost twice as heavy as the 4G!

The AF-S 70-200/4.0G is also very good, and as durable! If Imaging Resouce's tests are anything to go by the VR II and the 4G are about as sharp (the VR II slightly ahead), but the 4G is far better when used on DX bodies, which the VR II isn't!
Optical Limits grades the 4G slightly softer, but with a great Bokeh when it comes to subjects behind focus.
Click to expand...
You're right, Tord, and since it's sharp wide open and at the longest focal length, that's where a lens like this will most often be used. At f2.8, focus on my lens has to be perfect, so I often shoot at f4.5 or f4 anyway! That extra stop of depth of field comes in handy, and modern cameras (and software) don't need fast lenses as much as they did in the past.

Aside:

Tiny kit lenses with maximum apertures at the long end of f5.6 or f6.3 just don't cut it for me. Sure, they're small and okay for snapshots, but I like some isolation; and I'm not going to spend my time manipulating everything with software.

I once had a wedding client who looked at a photo I took that had a dreamy background. She asked me, "What kind of program did you use to do this? I love it!" Apparently many cell phone photographers think a digital filter is the only way to make a photo better. I've also had people ask me, "Why is part of the picture blurry in so many shots? Can't you get everything in focus?" Nope, not all the time -- humph! You can't please everyone!
 
So did I. That is why I clicked on the thread! My "surrogate" father had an F with a Photomic head that he bought new in the 60's. One day I do hope to buy one and display it with my Nikon 8mm f2.8 AI-S. I would have to pay out the fortune to run one roll of film through it though! I do use the fisheye on a regular basis on my 5DSR.
 
Hi,

Just for G+G (grins and giggles), many newer lenses with aperture rings have pilot holes for the screws for the rabbit ears at f5.6....so it is possible to use newer stuff on the older F and F2 (non AS).

:)

My intent when I entered this thread was to point that out. And the rabbit ears and screws could come off any old lens found in any old shop. And they probably have such on hand without reverting to buying an entire lens...

Stan
 
Parry Johnson said:
fft81 said:
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Been using 70-200 vr2 on d800 since got d800 in 2012. Love it! Used one can be had on ebay for $600-$1000
Click to expand...
I've had no reason to upgrade my VR2 since 2012 -- I love it for action, portraits, landscape details -- pretty much everything.

Yes, it's heavy and sometimes intimidating, but works just as well with Z cameras (and FTZ) -- something to consider for the future.

I paid close to $2000 CAD ten years ago, and used prices here in Canada haven't fallen much. That's a good thing, as even if you're paying $1000 US for a used one, you can pretty much use it all you want and resell it without losing any money -- if any.

The only caution I have is that you check out the lens thoroughly -- many of the cheaper ones have seen heavy use by professionals, and they will be expensive to repair -- which will happen sooner or later. (The same goes for any of this type of lens). That said, mine has probably taken 200,000 shots and is still working perfectly.

Disclosure: The AF did sound funny for awhile after I fell from a bridge five years ago, but that problem corrected itself quickly and I've never had to send it in. That just goes to prove how well this lens is made, and why it was so expensive in the first place. (I took the brunt of the fall, which luckily only cracked a rib and the lens hood.)
Click to expand...
I used to think my 70-200 vr2 was heavy and then i got the 300 f/2.8 and realized just how nice and compact 70-200 f/2.8 is.

I used to think my 300mm f/2.8 vr1 was heavy and then i got the 600mm f/4 and realized just how nice and compact 300mm f/2.8 is.
 
Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

Just for G+G (grins and giggles), many newer lenses with aperture rings have pilot holes for the screws for the rabbit ears at f5.6....so it is possible to use newer stuff on the older F and F2 (non AS).

:)

My intent when I entered this thread was to point that out. And the rabbit ears and screws could come off any old lens found in any old shop. And they probably have such on hand without reverting to buying an entire lens...

Stan
Click to expand...
If you don't want to add the rabbit ears, the F and F2 can use stop down metering as well.
 
fft81 said:
Parry Johnson said:
fft81 said:
sorelrjphoto said:
I've been looking for a good 70-200 f2.8 for my D850, and the amount of options out there is a little overwhelming. Does anyone have recommendations on the best options? I know the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is a great lens, but I can't afford to spend upwards $1500 on a single lens right now. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Been using 70-200 vr2 on d800 since got d800 in 2012. Love it! Used one can be had on ebay for $600-$1000
Click to expand...
I've had no reason to upgrade my VR2 since 2012 -- I love it for action, portraits, landscape details -- pretty much everything.

Yes, it's heavy and sometimes intimidating, but works just as well with Z cameras (and FTZ) -- something to consider for the future.

I paid close to $2000 CAD ten years ago, and used prices here in Canada haven't fallen much. That's a good thing, as even if you're paying $1000 US for a used one, you can pretty much use it all you want and resell it without losing any money -- if any.

The only caution I have is that you check out the lens thoroughly -- many of the cheaper ones have seen heavy use by professionals, and they will be expensive to repair -- which will happen sooner or later. (The same goes for any of this type of lens). That said, mine has probably taken 200,000 shots and is still working perfectly.

Disclosure: The AF did sound funny for awhile after I fell from a bridge five years ago, but that problem corrected itself quickly and I've never had to send it in. That just goes to prove how well this lens is made, and why it was so expensive in the first place. (I took the brunt of the fall, which luckily only cracked a rib and the lens hood.)
Click to expand...
I used to think my 70-200 vr2 was heavy and then i got the 300 f/2.8 and realized just how nice and compact 70-200 f/2.8 is.

I used to think my 300mm f/2.8 vr1 was heavy and then i got the 600mm f/4 and realized just how nice and compact 300mm f/2.8 is.
Click to expand...
I went the other way, from the hefty SIgma 150-600 S (that with monopod attached weighs over 8 lbs) to the Sigma 100-400 C with TC-1401, which has roughly the same zoom range and weighs less than a third!

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses.
WSSA #456
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top